Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add alebgl77/claude-inc --skill triage-ndagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alebgl77/claude-incWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/alebgl77/claude-inc/triage-nda)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alebgl77/claude-inc/triage-nda"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alebgl77/claude-inc/triage-nda/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alebgl77/claude-inc/triage-nda"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alebgl77/claude-inc/triage-nda.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00100 | $0.01008 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.00403 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00202 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
triage-nda scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Triage NDA — NDA Triage
"Fast NDA review"
Built for speed: seven screens, one verdict, ten minutes. Works on pasted NDA text or a file.
When to use
- "Can I just sign this NDA?" — the speed call
- "Sales needs this countersigned today" — deal-velocity triage
- "Is this NDA actually mutual?" — direction check
- Screening a batch of inbound NDAs before a partner event
- Confidentiality terms embedded in a larger agreement belong to
review-contract, not here
Workflow
- Ingest the NDA (pasted text or file). Confirm it is a standalone NDA; note parties, stated purpose, and our disclosure direction (mostly disclosing, mostly receiving, or both).
- Screen mutuality: obligations must run both ways if information does. One-way obligations against us while we disclose is RED territory.
- Check term and survival: an agreement term of 1-3 years and confidentiality survival of 2-5 years are standard; indefinite survival passes only for trade secrets.
- Check definition breadth: "Confidential Information" should be bounded — marked, or reasonably understood as confidential. Definitions sweeping in all business contacts or "any information disclosed by any means at any time" get flagged.
- Hunt embedded landmines: non-solicit, non-compete, exclusivity, or standstill clauses do not belong in an NDA — any one of them forces RED.
- Verify the four standard carve-outs: public knowledge, prior possession, independent development, compelled disclosure (with notice where lawful). Each missing carve-out is a YELLOW fix with insert language.
- Screen residuals and IP: a residuals clause broad enough to gut confidentiality is RED; any assignment of IP, feedback, or derivatives smuggled into an NDA is RED.
- Classify and deliver: GREEN — sign under standard delegation; YELLOW — apply the listed fixes, then sign; RED — route to full review with reasons quoted.
Output format
NDA TRIAGE — <counterparty> — <date>
Direction: <mutual / we disclose / we receive> Purpose: <one line>
VERDICT: <GREEN — sign under standard delegation | YELLOW — fix, then sign | RED — full review>
SCREENS
| Check | Result | Note |
|------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|
| Mutuality | PASS | |
| Term & survival | FLAG | <what and why> |
| Definition breadth | PASS | |
| Embedded non-solicit / non-compete | PASS | |
| Standard carve-outs (4) | FLAG | missing: <which> |
| Residuals clause | PASS | none present |
| IP assignment smuggling | PASS | none present |
FIXES (YELLOW verdicts)
1. <clause> — Quote: "<verbatim>" → Insert: "<replacement language>"
2. <clause> — Quote: "<verbatim>" → Insert: "<replacement language>"
RED REASONS (RED verdicts)
- <finding> — Quote: "<verbatim>" — why it forces full review
*Issue-spotting support, not legal advice — engage counsel for binding decisions.*
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 76 lines · 100 tokens per session scan A d02f5aa18cf9
triage-nda is a skill published in the GitHub repository alebgl77/claude-inc (19 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 100 tokens to every session and 1,008 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
simplify-code
Parallel 4-agent cleanup of recent code changes.
code-review-checklist
Genera un checklist de revisión de código personalizado para cualquier pull request basado en el lenguaje, tipo de cambio y nivel de riesgo. Úsalo cuando te pidan revisar código, verificar un PR, revisar un pull request o generar un checklist de revisión de código. Produce un checklist enfocado con verificaciones…
community-research-insight
Extract structured insight briefs from community research transcripts or notes. Produces pain points, stakeholder needs, opportunity maps, risks, and follow-up questions. Requires human review before publication.
output-eval-error-analysis
Systematically review workflow traces to identify failure modes before building evaluators. Use when starting an eval project, after significant pipeline changes, or when production quality drops.
output-dev-workflow-function
Create workflow.ts files for Output SDK workflows. Use when defining workflow functions, orchestrating steps, or fixing workflow structure issues.
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…